Towards A Vedic Answer to the Problem of Evil: The Theology of Play

Understanding the Vedic Concept of Creation as Play and Addressing the Problem of Evil

One of the most distinctive aspects of Sanātana Dharma is the concept of creation as divine play. In this essay, we will delve into the theology of Creation as Play, explore how Śāstra (sacred texts) reveal creation's divine origin, examine the commentary of eminent Ācāryas on this concept, and consider its implications for individuals grappling with the age-old question of evil: how could a benevolent God create a universe marred by suffering and pain?

From the outset, this article will seek to understand the issue primarily from the perspective of the Vedānta Sūtras, where we find two key sūtras in the Prayojanavattvādhikaraṇa (Adhikaraṇa on purposeful creation), namely sūtras 33 and 35. Here, Veda Vyāsa states:

1. “Mere play is all (His purpose in the creation of the world)” (līlā-mātraṁ sṛṣṭeḥ kāraṇam).

2. “If it be said that there is no karma (or results of works before creation) because (of the declaration in the scriptures) of the non-distinction (between the individual selves and Brahman prior to creation), it is replied that it is not right to say so; because they (the individual selves and their karma) are beginningless.”

These verses, along with the rest of this adhikaraṇa, are incredibly important for understanding not only why we alone are responsible for our bondage in the cycle of saṁsāra, but also how we can transcendentalize our perspective of our sojourn in materiality. They teach us how to transform our earthly existence into an opportunity for service (kainkarya) to Īśvara (the Supreme Being).

Preliminary Discussion and Background

Our exploration will primarily focus on the Brahma Sutra of Bādarāyaṇa, an important scripture that delves into the profound questions of the universe's origin and the nature of Brahman's relationship to creation. Bādarāyaṇa's Brahma Sutras sets the stage for subsequent commentaries by renowned Acharyas who offer their own insights, attempting to shed light on the sutras' concise yet incredibly deep and sometimes perplexing statements.

Our exploration begins with an examination of the background and the prima facie view presented in the Brahma Sutras. The act of creation necessitates a desire to create on the part of the creator. Any being that embarks on the process of creating something must possess this desire. However, desire is a modification of the mind, a psychological disturbance often associated with bondage to materiality. This is evident in the teachings of Yājñavalkya to king Janaka, where he states that the Jīva (individual being), having been liberated from material existence, no longer experiences desire or sorrow, living free from the shackles of desire.1

The universe, with its vast array of diverse life forms and objects, suggests the presence of an intelligence behind its creation. However, if an intelligent being created the universe, this being cannot be Brahman (the Supreme Reality), as Brahman is inherently free from desire. Desire is a characteristic of material existence, and Brahman, being the Supreme Reality, transcends the limitations of materiality.

This denial of Brahman as the creator of the universe stands in contrast to the teleological argument, which posits that the apparent design in the universe necessitates a creator. In this case, we have an inverted teleological argument: the universe seems to have design, but the creator cannot be Brahman, as Brahman is beyond the need or desire to create.

At this point, we might interject and contend that Brahma, a jīva bound in materiality, created the universe, and it is his intelligent design that we perceive. However, Brahma himself is a created being, the first being tasked with the creation of the universe. In the Śrimad Bhagavatam, Brahma creates through the potency of rajas, or passion. But he does so at the instruction of Brahman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Even if Brahman created all beings from its own design and intellect, without any external blueprints, Brahman still bestows the creative potency upon Brahma, who is an ontological continuation of Brahman. Thus, we find ourselves in a situation where Brahman had the desire to create a being capable of creating the universe. We have not escaped the conundrum.

But what if we assert that Brahman created the universe selflessly, solely for the benefit of those beings who desired to enter the material universe? At this point, we must address the Problem of Evil, whereby we become engaged in Theodicy, or asserting the essential goodness of God in the face of apparent and material evils (i.e. how can an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being create a world filled with suffering?) If Brahman is selfless and desireless, why create a universe that encompasses suffering, where suffering is a commonplace occurrence? We cannot simply dismiss this by claiming that the jīvas themselves had a desire to suffer, as individuals do not have the power to dictate when or how much they suffer. Suffering is imposed upon us - and the explanation lies in karmic fruits. We reap what we sow. If we attempt to dismiss the Problem of Evil by stating that the universe was created with suffering contained within it because they wanted to experience suffering, then we must disregard the entire universal law of karma. This would not be logically consistent.

Even if we were willing to discard the concept of karma, we have not adequately addressed the issue of Brahman's desirelessness. Even if Brahman creates the universe out of selfless motives, it still implies a desire to create, even if that creation is solely for the benefit of jīvas. Selfless creative acts are not devoid of desire. Furthermore, from the perspective of evil, creating a universe where beings suffer is not beneficial to anyone. Therefore, to resolve the Problem of Evil, to maintain that Brahman, the efficient and causal principle of creation, is not evil or not wholly "Good," we must avoid attributing desire to Brahman. Desire is a deviation from the true Self, which is entirely self-satisfied and blissful, lacking nothing. Brahman, being the Ultimate Self, the soul of the universe (in Vishishtadvaitan terms), cannot have any desires, as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being creating a world filled with seemingly evil acts would be paradoxical.

Indeed, even if we prove that Brahman has no desire, we are still confronted with the question of why evil exists. The answer must satisfy two criteria: it must align with Upanishadic revelations regarding the nature of Brahman (the Svarupa of Brahman) and simultaneously explain the existence of evil.

Attempts by Other Schools

At this point, it is necessary to examine how other schools of philosophy within the Vedic tradition have attempted, and arguably failed, to provide a satisfactory answer to the question of Brahman's intent, considering the aforementioned criteria, and inadvertently sidestepped the Problem of Evil that inevitably arises when discussing Brahman's relationship to the created universe.

Let us first consider the Advaitan perspective, which posits that the universe is inherently illusory in nature. While a comprehensive exploration of the nature of the universe and materiality is beyond the scope of this essay, we can simply summarize the Advaitan position as asserting that the universe is illusory - it does not exist in its own right but is merely a product of the limiting principles. It is essentially unreal, a manifestation of delusion. While there are numerous reasons to question this assertion, the traditional Vedic understanding recognizes the universe as one of the three fundamental entities, the Tri-tattva, alongside Brahman and the individual soul (jīvātman). This categorical denial of the universe and materiality does not address the Problem of Evil; it simply negates the problem's existence. I find this unsatisfactory, as it raises further questions: how do beings who are inherently one with Brahman fall under the illusion of separation? And how does Brahman, being free from illusion, guide and educate jīvas who are trapped within it? The dismissive stance of Advaita, asserting that all is illusion, fails to provide a satisfying resolution to the Problem of Evil.

Moving on to the Sāṃkhya school of thought, the explanation provided for the creation of the universe revolves around the interplay between Puruṣa (the spiritual principle) and Prakṛti (the eternal material principle). Their proximity triggers a spontaneous outpouring, akin to the production of milk from the union of a cow and its calf. This union generates the universe, which can be likened to the cow's milk in this analogy. Sāṃkhya maintains that the universe's sole purpose is to facilitate liberation. The universe serves as a means for the liberation of the jīva (individual soul). We can extend this analogy by considering the universe as nourishment for the jīva in bondage, aiding its path to liberation. Once a jīva's attachment to materiality diminishes, the universe ceases to be a necessity. Puruṣārtha, the principle at play, emphasizes that the universe is created for the benefit of the soul.¹

Rāmānuja identifies a crucial flaw in the Sāṃkhya school's assertion that the universe exists to liberate jīvas who are not yet bound to materiality. He posits that the intellect, the faculty responsible for generating notions of ownership and aversion, is itself a product of material creation. These concepts are fundamental to material bondage, as they arise from the misconception of the Self as the physical body. Given that the intellect is a product of material creation, Rāmānuja argues that the Sāṃkhya position becomes untenable. How can a jīva, devoid of the intellect, be bound to materiality and require a universe to guide it towards liberation? If the intellect, the catalyst for material bondage, is not present prior to the union of the individual soul and the Prime Matter, then the Sāṃkhya explanation of the universe's purpose is logically inconsistent.

The Theology of Play as Free from Desire

Since desire implies the absence of something external (an object of the senses) and the need to acquire it, it follows that desire is a source of suffering. This is the authoritative conclusion of the Vedic seers. To address how Brahman can create without desire, Bādarāyaṇa states:

But (Brahman’s creative activity) is mere pastime [līlā], as seen in the world²

Rāmānuja describes this playful creation as "mere-ness," emphasizing its lack of intentionality, which is the seed of desire and, consequently, bondage. There is no desire inherent in this playful act of creation. Picture a king who has accomplished all his responsibilities, won all his battles, and flawlessly governed his kingdom. Yet, even as the supreme ruler, he might still engage with the simple pleasure of playing ball with his ministers. This act does not stem from desire in the sense that desire arises from a perceived lack. Instead, it is pure action, devoid of any material gain or stakes. The actor's motivations are not driven by a need for something they lack; rather, the act itself is a source of sublime simplicity.

At this point, an objection to Rāmānuja's concept of playful creation can be raised. If the universe was created in a desireless state of play, how can we reconcile this with the existence of inequality and suffering in the world? The state of play, being desireless, does not initially seem sufficient to explain the suffering we witness. In his commentary on the above sutra, Rāmānuja anticipates this objection: "So Brahman [the Prima Facie argument in the Sutras states] who is full of compassion cannot be the cause of this diabolical world even out of mere sport."

Rāmānuja's response to this objection lies in the concept of māyā, or illusion. Māyā is not a false reality, but rather a distorted perception of reality. It is the veil that obscures our true understanding of Brahman and our place within the universe. The suffering we experience is a consequence of our immersion in māyā, leading to attachment, aversion, and the cycle of karma. By overcoming māyā and recognizing our true nature as Brahman, we can transcend suffering and experience the divine play of Brahman directly.

The next two sutras also answer this objection:

Partiality and cruelty cannot (be attributed to Brahman) on account of Its taking into consideration (other reasons in that matter), because (the scripture) declares (it to be) so.³

and

If it be said (that is) not (possible) for want of any distinction in work (before creation), (we say) no, because (the world) is beginning-less; this is reasonable and is also seen from the scriptures.⁴

The first sutra emphasizes that the Problem of Evil, the existence of suffering in the world, cannot be attributed to Brahman and its playful creative activity. Brahman is impartial to all, as affirmed in the Bhagavad Gita:

I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.⁵

The disparities and suffering we witness in the world cannot be attributed to a creator who is impartial and cruel. According to Rāmānuja, souls are born based on their past karmas (actions), and it is the fruits of these past actions that account for the differences in their circumstances. Brahman, for Rāmānuja, serves as the general efficient cause, or the operative cause, akin to rain that nurtures the growth of various seeds. These seeds, representing individual souls, possess latent tendencies shaped by their past karmas. These tendencies, when activated by Brahman's creative play, determine the paths of individual souls. Brahman is not responsible for these tendencies; it merely facilitates their manifestation. In essence, the free will exercised by individual souls dictates their diverse existences, including the capacity for suffering due to past karmas' consequences.

However, an objection arises from the aforementioned sutra regarding the lack of distinction in actions before creation. Since karma did not exist prior to the material universe's emergence, it follows that Brahman must either be partial and cruel or not the creator of the universe. This objection is addressed in the latter sutra, which emphasizes the eternity of individual souls and the Prime Matter. Consequently, we cannot postulate a period devoid of karmic entanglement. This theological concept hinges on a verse from the Chāndogyopaniṣad 6.2.1: "In the beginning, dear boy, there was this Being alone, one only." This verse can be misconstrued, leading to the belief that Brahman existed in isolation before creating other beings. However, a holistic interpretation of Vedic scriptures reveals that Brahman, individual souls (jīvas), and jagat (material nature) are all eternal entities. The Bhagavad Gita makes this clear:

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.⁶

Meaning that all the kings (i.e. assembled jīvas at the battle of Kurukshetra) and, by extension all individual jīvatmans, are eternal. Further:

Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature.⁷

Here we see Lord Krishna confirming the eternal nature of matter (jagat). So we see that the proper understanding of this verse is that the jīvatmans and Prime Matter all existed in a subtle condition before creation - they were not created ex nihilo - out of nothing. This is further confirmed in the Upanishads:

The universe was previously not differentiated. Brahman became differentiated with names and forms⁸

The text confirms that in creation the unmanifested forms become manifested in grosser states. Further confirmation of the eternality of the soul can be found in the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad:

The Lord and jīva are both without birth⁹

Having established that Vedic scriptures reveal the eternal nature of both materiality and the individual soul, we cannot coherently conceive of a beginning where the jīva, or individual soul, was free from the entanglement of karma. Karmic entanglement for the soul in bondage is timeless, without beginning. This karmic entanglement is eternal. We cannot conceptualize a period prior to karmic entanglement. There is even a Sanskrit term for us, the conditioned beings, aptly named nitya-baddha, which means "eternally bound." Not only is this revealed in scripture, but it is also thoroughly confirmed by great Gurus. For instance, in Jaiva Dharma Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura writes: "Therefore karma has no beginning in material time. Thus it is called anādi, beginningless."¹⁰ Similarly, Jiva Gosvāmī confirms that the jīva's conditioning in the material world has no beginning. If this were not the case, we would be compelled to consider material entanglement as a movement away from a perfect state, a concept thoroughly incompatible with Vedic scripture and Vedantic philosophy. Such a movement away from a perfected state would be impossible, since once a being attains liberation (i.e. freedom from material entanglement), they never return to a state of material entanglement - this is not due to a lack of free will or an inability to exercise it, it’s rather that when the liberated being is free from illusion, they are capable of perfectly exercising their will and, therefore, this logically excludes the possibility of misuse of it. Ergo, the liberated being cannot will that they be not liberated.

When karma is recognized as eternal, we can better comprehend why the advanced yogi does not distinguish between good and bad karma. The spiritually mature individual does not desire either good or bad karma, as both are equally binding to the material world. Lord Krishna's first instruction in the Bhagavad Gita is on how to renounce both good and bad karma to attain liberation and bring the aspirant to a concrete knowledge of the true Self.

In light of this, it becomes evident that Brahman's desireless playful creation does not generate evil (suffering) due to a cruel or imperfect creator. Rather, it fosters an environment where Brahman, as the Lord of all, can experience enjoyment in the realm of material activity alongside the eternally bound souls. The souls themselves have free will, and they bear the consequences, both positive and negative, of their actions.

Brahman’s play, or sport, is not out of a competitive need, but rather it is a self-referential and self-teleological action.¹¹ It is self-teleological because it does not terminate in external objects, which is the case for desire (e.g. sexual desire terminating in the woman that becomes the object for sexual desire). Brahman’s self-teleological play merely requires the presence of accessories, such as a ball or a field. Since Brahman has all attributes required for creation, and so only in Brahman is creation possible¹², we must understand how it is that Brahman arranges for the accessories of His play, which is called Satya-saṅkalpa. To quote Srila Prabhupada: “Satya-saṅkalpa means whatever He thinks, immediately it is present.” That is, Brahman creates through pure intention. It is mere will or intention that Brahman creates the universe. This pure will in coextensive with omnipotence, which is having all attributes required for the creation of the universe.

Although the state of play is not directly referenced in the Upanishadic literature, it does make an appearance in the Puranas, namely, the Vishnu Purana, which states:

Vishnu being thus discrete and indiscrete substance, spirit, and time, sports like a playful boy, as you shall learn by listening to his frolics¹³

The Theology of Play is perhaps most tangible in the pastimes of Avataras. Apart from līlās like Krishna’s dancing with the gopis, they often take up arms to defeat powerful beings that, though complex in themselves and multifaceted, can be described as primarily driven by a desire to control and dominate, some adversaries even being so powerful to challenge the cosmic order. For example, Ravana wishes to steal the wife of Rama, and so wishes to steal the power, the Śakti, of God for himself, for his own twisted pleasures. Śakti is also the material energy of the Supreme, and so Ravana’s desire to keep Śakti to himself is representative of his overwhelming desire to lord it over the material energy of the Supreme Being.

Two things emerge when we consider pastimes of avataras that involve combat with evil beings: firstly, such pastimes offer us an insight into the nature of Brahman. Secondly, they are instructive to the individual as to how they are to view the presence of evil in the world and in their own life.

Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura discusses the various demons killed by Krishna as representing something specific. In the case of Agharura, the snake that attempts to swallow Krishna whole, it represents cruelty and violence.¹⁴ In the same way, our anger, born of material greed and unmet desire for the objects of the senses, swallows us whole. We act in cruel and violent ways to appease our desires. Krishna, upon being swallowed, rips open the stomach of the demon, ending its life. This is instructional for the devotee, who can learn that Krishna is the end to the violent and cruel nature we harbour through association with the false ego.

In another example, Kāliya, a serpent demon, had polluted the waters of the yamunā river. Krishna destroys him by dancing on his head with the full weight of the universe. We are taught that cruelty to nature and pollution carries with it the weight of the universe in terms of punishment, and God will not tolerate for very long His creation to be marred and abused by snake-like beings.

Such stories reveal that the playfulness of God is not restricted to creation, but creation, which is an outpouring of play, is the stage. Under evil being, good people are tormented, killed, harassed, and face untold misery. Yet, for the sake of Brahman’s play, this is allowed to unfold. And although all suffering is, ultimately, due to the actions of the individual souls, the whole of creation has been organised as to allow it to be an instrument of play.

This may sound dreadful to the atheist. “How,” they may proclaim, “could a just God allow people to suffer for His play?”. An understanding of līlā in this personal aspect requires a spiritualisation of human justice. Suffering is a given, it is the reality we face, whether or not we agree. But when we purify our consciousness, we come to see that all suffering is Krishna playing His flute. We are engaged in divine līlā in every moment. This spiritualisation of suffering as service to the play of God refines the suffering. In short, it transcendentalises our suffering and, ultimately, we come to the knowledge that it ends in Krishna, it ends in bliss. Bliss is the nature of Brahman, it is the nature of the true Self. And so, the nature of Brahman’s play is an outpouring of transcendental bliss.

A further consideration cannot be ignored. The individual souls, or nitya-baddha, caught in material entanglement must exist to enable the Lord, who is līlāmāyā, to have the full range of līlā (sport, or play). The personal Supreme Being, if He is to express His nature through the desireless act of play, must be able to enjoy all varieties of līlā.

The theology of play, through explaining Brahman’s relationship with creation and, on a personal and existential front, the lived experience of the individual jīvatman, equips us with a powerful mental tool by which to enter into a personal relationship with Ishvara. When we see all creation as divine play, we come to a deeper understanding of Krishna’s dance with the gopīs. We are all dancing with Krishna, caught up in the whirl of the moment, being spun by His graceful hands. Play is, after all, of the nature of Brahman, because pure play is an overflowing of bliss, and bliss is the nature of The Supreme Being.

Conclusion

To summarise, we have explored the concept of creation and addressed the issue of evil in the context of Vedic philosophy.

First, we established that every action is driven by a desire to fulfill a need or lack. Since Brahman is inherently perfect and complete, the act of creation cannot be attributed to it. Brahman's nature is bliss, and it is self-sufficient.

Second, Ramanuja's concept of "mere-ness of play" suggests that creation is not motivated by desire or need. It is simply the outpouring of Brahman's blissful nature, an expression of its inherent joy.

Third, the act of creation, seen as mere play, is orchestrated for the Supreme Being's līlā or divine play. This play is not partial or cruel, as it is guided by the karmic entanglement of individual souls. Thus, evil, injustice, disease, and other perceived forms of suffering do not originate from Brahman; they are the consequences of individual actions.

Fourth, since all karma, whether good or bad, keeps the individual soul in a state of illusion, we can consider all forms of material existence as suffering. Even the highest material pleasures, such as those experienced by gods, are temporary and pale in comparison to the ultimate bliss of Self-realization.

Fifth, karma has no beginning, but our involvement with it can come to an end. This is the meaning of “anādi” - used in verse 2.1.35 of the Vedantasutras - which simply negates the concept of ādi, or "beginning." Thus, it indicates beginninglessness. Individual souls are bound to materiality by their own actions, and have been since time immemorial.

Sixth, the existence of beings entangled in materiality enables the Supreme Being to fully manifest and experience the complete range of līlās that befit His role as the Sovereign of the universe. This does not imply that God, in the absence of nitya-baddha beings (those eternally bound without a beginning), would lack anything. Rather, through their own free will and attraction to māyā, these beings inadvertently participate in fulfilling God’s divine līlās. In His infinite compassion, God is pleased to engage with such individuals, ultimately guiding them back to their svarūpa (constitutional position) as His loving servants.

Seventh, the līlās of the Supreme Being, especially those involving the defeat of evil entities, demonstrate the ultimate triumph of good over evil, which arises from the individual soul's karma.

The Problem of Evil, the question of why a benevolent God would allow suffering to exist, is addressed from several perspectives in Vedic thought:

• Firstly, Brahman's creative act is seen as an outpouring of Its blissful nature, and therefore is not motivated by partiality or cruelty. This is because the act is self-referential, meaning it is an expression of Brahman's own nature.

• Secondly, apparent evils are seen as arising from karma, or the consequences of past actions. Material entanglement, or being bound to the material world, is the root cause of karma and suffering.

• Thirdly, from a spiritual perspective, apparent evils are considered to be temporary illusions, as they do not affect the true Self, which is a blissful, unchanging entity.

• Fourthly, evil is seen as a manifestation of the desire to control and dominate matter. This desire arises from material lust and desire, which lead to attachment and suffering.

• The avatars of the Supreme Being, or the divine incarnations, are said to always defeat evil beings, demonstrating the ultimate victory of good over evil. This underscores the concept that the Supreme Being always counteracts the tendency towards evil within materially entangled beings.

• Since apparent evil is ultimately overcome by the Supreme Being, it can be understood as a part of divine play or līlā. When viewed from a transcendental perspective, apparent evils can be seen as not truly evil but rather as aspects of the divine's creative expression.

The Vedic conclusion is that creation is eternal, a continuous outpouring of the Supreme Being's blissful nature, expressed through the playful manifestation of the universe. Material existence, in contrast, is akin to a camel chewing thorns, relishing the taste of its own blood – a realm of perpetual suffering. The apparent evil and suffering we witness are merely the consequences of our past actions, manifested through the intricate dance of karma. Even as we experience the repercussions of our karma, we must recognize that it is all part of the Supreme Being's playful creation. From a transcendental perspective, we can see that everything, including suffering and evil, is an integral part of the divine play, ultimately leading to the blissful realization of our true Self.

1. The Philosophy of The Brahma-Sutra, Aleksandar Uskokov

2. Brahma Sutras 2.1.33

3. Brahma Sutras 2.1.34

4. Brahma Sutras 2.1.35

5. Bhagavad Gita 9.29

6. Bhagavad Gita 2.12

7. Bhagavad Gita 13.20

8. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7

9. Śvetāśvataropaniṣad 1.9

10. Chapter 16

11. The Philosophy of The Brahma-Sutra, Aleksandar Uskokov

12. Brahma Sutras 2.1.36

13. Vishnu Purana 1.2.18

14. Sri Krishna Samhita, Chapter 4.